Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_145/2026

Applications to amend a patent under Rule 30.2 RoP or amend a case under Rule 263 RoP fall within the first-instance court’s judicial discretion. The Court of Appeal will not substitute its own assessment unless the appellant demonstrates that the division exceeded the boundaries of its discretion and could not reasonably have reached the impugned decision.

Under Article 76(1) UPCA and Rule 25.1 RoP, the court cannot decide ultra petita. Where unasserted claims are not attacked in a counterclaim for revocation, an amendment incorporating their subject matter cannot serve as a defence against revocation. Rule 30.2 RoP cannot be used as a vehicle to belatedly expand the claimant’s affirmative infringement case.

Under Rules 30.2 and 263.1 RoP, the applicant must show that the amendment could not have been submitted earlier with reasonable diligence. A patent proprietor pursuing parallel proceedings bears an affirmative duty to coordinate claim sets; more lenient late-filing rules at the European Patent Office do not excuse a failure to diligently align requests before the Unified Patent Court.
Delaying the submission of an application to amend until more than seven weeks after an oral hearing in parallel proceedings – and after written pleadings have closed – fails the requirement of reasonable diligence under Rule 263.1 RoP. Awaiting written minutes does not justify the delay when the hearing’s course is undisputed.

Unified Patent Court proceedings are strictly front-loaded under point 7 of the Preamble of the Rules of Procedure. Under the principle of proportionality, admitting new claim sets shortly before the interim conference and oral hearing unreasonably hinders the defendants’ conduct of the action by necessitating fresh validity and infringement assessments without adequate time for written briefing.